Criticism/solution in regards verge ecosystem scoring (spurred by OSX Mavericks controversy)

There is much controversy over the ecosystem issue that has risen again in relation to the new version of OSX. I am therefore interested in alternatives to the "grading" of verge products.

The verge is a website that rates products and does its reviews based on qualitative observations. Therefore, the numbers given to a product have little to no observable or conveyable meaning. While many times I find nothing wrong with The Verge reviews and I many times agree with their judgements, It does not make sense to give a numerical value to a qualitative assessment done with little attention to specifications and statistics.The only purpose of this numerical grading system is to provide an accurate comparison to other products but it is clearly flawed.

Coming back to the topic at hand, If you were to attempt to get an accurate score for ecosystem the best way to do so would be to poll a very large random sample(RANDOM as in not specifically viewers of this website or related websites) of a population for the applications they need/use most on their computers, tablets, and phones respectively.

Then this data must be compiled and referenced to the applications and programs available on the different ecosystems. For ecosystems that have similar but less feature rich options "half credit" can be given. Therefore, the score given to ecosystems will consist of (amount of desired applications and features in ecosystem / total desired features and applications). While this would give a more accurate assessment it is very time consuming and resource consuming.

The best solution I am able to propose is to remove the number system all together and to compare products and their aspects with () relative to competing products and presenting it in such way. That’s my input for the day.